Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
The reason why the provos decided to come to the table and talk was because thatcher sent the SAS and wiped alot of them out.
Fight fire with fire. The reason why there is peace is because Blair has sold the country out, IMHO we recently had one of the most ruthless terriorists in NI become minister of education, (self confessed IRA commader).
IMHO violence against insurgents/terrorists merely creates the next generation and engenders sympathy and support with surrounding non-participants.
A lot of propaganda effort has gone into propagating the myth that the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah are religious fundamentalists who are hell-bent on genocide. This assessment is entirely disingenuous and is designed to manipulate us into supporting the neo-con agenda, which has no interest in our welfare or security.
The Lebanese and Palestinian grievances are entirely about security and land rights and as such they can be negotiated with. Not so long ago these movements were non-religious but violent repression has given strength to the religious factions and the more they are punished the worse it will get as the cycle of revenge takes hold.
I do realise that there are members of these groups who call for "the eradication" of Israel but anyone who is familiar with Arab culture and politics knows that these are minority views and little more than bluster designed to inspire the masses. There are yet more sinister regimes and groups with more extremist agenda but aligning the Palestinian and Lebanese causes with these is a dishonest slight of hand and is slowly weakening the hand of moderate forces in the ME.
I take it then you are against the bombing of civllians in the Middle East?
And by your logic we should have therefore had a nuclear war with the Soviet Union rather than detente and disarnament discussions?
War is a terrible thing, you either have to have to do it totally or accept the consequenses, if Israel had killed all of the Palestinians at the start would there now be a problem?
We accepted and engaged in the destruction of civilian populations of Germany & Japan during the firestorm bombing campaigns of WW2 as a legitimate tool of war, why are we now in war stituations so reluctant to use the same tools?
Kennedy was prepared to risk nuclear war rather than back down to Russia, detente and disarmament discussions have not removed the Russian threat, which now is again fighting wars by proxy and rebuilding its military infrastructure and asserting its rights to be a superpower.
Nuclear war with China during the Korean conflict could have weakened & averted the coming conflict with America which due to Chinas new strength will be an order of magnitude higher than anything that could have been seen in the 1950's
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think
[QUOTE=TwoWolves]IMHO violence against insurgents/terrorists merely creates the next generation and engenders sympathy and support with surrounding non-participants.
QUOTE]
Again - remove all of the blood line and sympathisers... and the problem goes away
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think
Comment